A Comparison of The Thing from Another World (1951), The Thing (1982), and The Thing (2011)Behind the Lens

1951Russell Harlan was nominated for 6 Oscars for his camera work. He has 100 credits listed at IMDb, beginning in 1937 on Westerns, then progressing through other genres, and ending in 1970. He was the director of Photography for Red River (1948), Rio Bravo (1959), and To Kill a Mockingbird (1962).

1982Dean Cundey shot the 1982 Carpenter film. His first DP credit occurred in 1973. His latest was in 2013, but three more films with his name on them are either finished, or in pre-production. If it says Back to the Future 2 or 3, he shot it. Jurassic Park (1993) was his camerawork. He shot Apollo 13 (1995). Cundey got an Oscar nom for his work on Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988), and won a Lifetime Achievement Award just this year from the American Society of Cinematographers, USA. Cundey also took on the Garfield (2004) and What Women Want (2000) gigs, so he must choose jobs that he thinks would be fun to shoot.

2011Michel Abramowicz started his DP career in 1982 with a French short film. All told, he has 26 Cinematographer screen credits according to IMDb. He shot The Wonders (2013) most recently, but has been chosen as the lenser for Wireless, which is announced but has no release date set. He is known for Taken (2008), The Thing (2011) and From Paris with Love (2010) an action crime thriller. Abramowicz worked as camera op and assistant camera from 1978 to 1982 before graduating to the directorial camera positions. He has continued to do those jobs on other films, even while acting as DP on most of his gigs.

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Well, I wrote eight essays, and they didn't all seem publishable. Canceled one of them this morning, and I've got the axe poised above another one. After I decide that blurb's fate, I'll graphic up the remainder and post them very quickly (maybe all at once).

I need to practice a lot with Premiere Pro to be ready for my sociology documentary tech editor job that comes up on June 16th. The sooner I can begin that with some intensity, the readier I can be to help my customer when she returns from Japan next month. Plus, I'll get a backlog of my own unedited video -- uhm, edited?

The job could actually be done with my copy of Vegas Video 10, but I'm renting the Creative Cloud, so every month I pay for the right to use Premiere Pro. Once I watch a few tutorials I'll know whether they've retained the method of specifying envelopes and how to designate fades, and so forth, from Premier 4.5 (which I last used in the year 2001). I don't know if the job would have any use for After Effects. It's installed on my 'puter, but I haven't even opened it. See, I paid $800.00 to own whatever version existed when I bought Premiere 4.0 (in 1997, I think), but my computer wasn't ballsy enough to run it! And in those days you couldn't return opened software to the store or catalog house. So, I was stuck with a bum expenditure. A big one. And, no matter how steep the learning curve was, I didn't get to traverse it.

I've been running like crazy from a cold virus that's been circulating in my near vicinity for a month, but somehow it finally caught me. One of those that gives you sinus drainage, a cough, and makes your joints feel like you're a hundred years old (thank goodness I'm not that old yet). So I'm having to "drink plenty of liquids and get plenty of rest", which slows a person down.

So watch for at least one Thing essay to appear below this post today. Maybe up to six.

And then I shall be finished with the Remake Rematch Thread!

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

A Comparison of The Thing from Another World (1951), The Thing (1982), and The Thing (2011)

Is The Thing Evil?

One of the major meanings of evil is harmful. If we take that as the definition of evil, then the Thing is evil, because it does harm to human beings. But the creature in the 1951 film, and that in the other two movies, as well as the 3-eyed 4-foot tall creature in John Campbell's original print story are trying to survive.

We humans eat things that are either still alive (fresh fruits and vegetables) or recently alive (all cooked foods) in order to survive. Do you reckon that carrots view humans as evil? I would if I were a carrot. Or a cow facing the broomstick gun in a slaughter house (if carrots and cows could think of such things).

Kudzu must be evil, because after it was imported to the US it was able to grow unimpeded by natural enemies, and has taken over abnormally large swaths of landscape, harming the plants that lived there before. But somehow the word evil implies to us that a person is purposely causing or bringing about harm. Especially harm to us or our allies. We excuse the harm done by less sentient beings, perhaps. And we also tend to see the good guy in the mirror, so it is difficult for us to think of ourselves or our allies as harmful, much less as evil. We don't think of it as evil to kill and eat creatures or plants, for example. Except certain ones. But even that differs by cultural context.

And if another natural life force confronts us with harm while merely attempting to survive, well we see that as evil. For us to harm it, even kill it in response to its aggression (as we perceive it) is not evil, merely defense of our own lives, thus defensible. Aggression in the face of aggression is not evil, but self-defense. I guess both sides in such a conflict would feel justified in declaring their opponent to be evil.

Mosquitos and fleas are annoying, until they become disease vectors and insinuate bubonic plague or malaria organisms into our bloodstreams. Then, they are evil.

Has this brief essay brought us this short distance only to conclude that evil is relative (in the eye of the beholder)? I think so.

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

A Comparison of The Thing from Another World (1951), The Thing (1982), and The Thing (2011)

Special Effects '82 & '11

Sometimes I feel sorry for the people who take on the job of creating fake beasts for film and television. They are up against our skepticism from every angle. Even if we know that the creature effects are practical ones, we still know they are fake. If we believe them to be CGI (even if they are actually practical effects) we often declare them to be obvious and badly done. It's really an impossible work environment, if you think about it. Yet certain men and women make a career of trying to do the impossible, often with a surprising degree of success. But I've noticed something else: sometimes the special effects seem more obvious or less, depending on the resolution of the medium I'm watching the film on, or how often I've seen the film.

Have you ever noticed this effect?: you watch a film at high resolution from film or 4K digital projection in a theater; then you later watch the same film from DVD (or, earlier, VHS) on your TV at home, and the special effects and compositing that looked so good in the theater suddenly seem cheesy, obvious, and low-budget.

Or have you had this experience?: you watch the film projected in a theater and the special effects are convincing; then you watch the film again in the theater and the special effects look fake, the compositing seems to stand out as if badly done on purpose.

There might be a psychological study made and published on how we perceive motion picture special effects, but I haven't found it. Regardless of that, there might be something to the "in the eye of the beholder" aspect of rating the competence of screen effects, from person to person...and why not from viewing to viewing? The first time through a film you are absorbed in trying to parse the story, and the special effects are involved in the process. The next time you watch, the story is already in your mind, so your brain pays attention to other aspects of the production.

Owen Gleiberman wrote at Entertainment Weekly that he didn't find the special effects in John Carpenter's The Thing convincing on a rewatch (link below). Some of the comments to his article were made by people who agreed that the fakeness of the effects puppets was obvious, but that it didn't rob the film of anything important, for them. Knowing that they were fake didn't keep them from looking fantastic to these viewers.

There is also, possibly, another mental process that happens when you watch an effects-laden movie: you know that what you are watching is fake, and maybe your brain is practicing only enough willing suspension of disbelief to let you remain in the seat and not physically flee when you see beasties on the screen. In other words, the ability to see the "fakeness" of the effect puppets, or CGI compositing could be a defense mechanism, one that might have existed a million years before the first motion picture was ever made. I suppose that would be suitable for keeping you from confusing flick with reality. But if you want to be totally immersed in the world of the story, and your brain won't quite let you, that might result in annoyance. That psychological effect might vary from person to person.

I will wrap this up by pointing out that there is something inexplicable about the first phenomenon I mentioned above. Compositing effects, which would seem to be less obvious at lower resolution are (to my eye, at least) often more obvious with the lower resolution video formats. For example, from DVD the Rob Bottin effects of the 1982 film look fakier to my eye than they do at Blu-ray resolution, even though I saw the DVD version first. Perhaps when I watch a film I compare how the effects look compared to the live action; at the same time I don't analyze the live-action portions for edge effects, because I don't expect any.

I have seen the 1982 film on broadcast television, from VHS and from DVD and Blu-ray. Never projected from film in a theater. The special effects looked worse in the lower resolutions than from Blu-ray, where they seem to match the live action portions of the film done with living flesh, well enough. I've only watched the 2011 film at Blu-ray resolution. (The frame grabs were made automatically from a DVD, but I didn't watch the film while that process unfolded). The effects that Alec Gillis and Tom Woodruff devised for the pre-make look quite convincing. They are a combination of (mostly) animatronic puppets and (to a lesser extent) CGI effects. I know they are fake, but they don't look fake. I think it has something to do with resolution. I can't just pop in the DVD (that came with the Blu-ray disc) and watch to see if the effects look fake at that resolution, because I'd be looking for it. The differences I've noticed on other films weren't the focus of my attention when I noticed the "deficiencies."

I've always thought that it might have something to do with the process of converting film to video, and some artifact of that process causing edge changes in internal resolution to show up more. Titanic looked fine in the theater, but the CGI with the ship looked fake on both the VHS tape I bought, and the DVD. I have no real explanation for this. It is what I see, but it doesn't seem possible, intellectually.

Go back using these buttons.

Rewatching John Carpenter's 1982 'The Thing': When special effects don't hold up By Owen Gleiberman on Oct 18, 2011 at 9:59AM at Entertainment Weekly "That said, the real problem I had watching The Thing a second time is that the special effects, much as I’d originally found them awesome, now looked fake. (Sorry, fellow fans, but that’s the only word that seems apt.) The thing is: Why?"5 Reasons The Thing Prequel Isn’t As Good As Carpenter’s Movie DATE: Oct 14, 2011 BY: Josh Tyler Category: Sci-Fi "This 2011 film is a prequel and by the time it’s over you’ll know everything there is to know about what happened to the Norwegians only mentioned casually in the 1982 freakishly horrifying thriller. In the process of connecting itself to Carpenter’s film this one demands you compare it, and by doing so pales in that comparison. So rather than review The Thing 2011 on its own, I’ve decided to analyze The Thing the way it seems to want us to see it: by comparing it to the movie that came before."John Carpenter's The Thing SPECIAL EFFECTS from Outpost #31 "The live-action, full-size Blair Monster had 63 technicians operating it. They were pulling cables, manipulating hand puppets, and tugging monofilament line. Says Bottin: "The guys were just outside of the frame. John had to scrap a couple of shots as fingers and elbows would show up in the frame." Bottin himself became the Blair Monster, climbing inside to operate the dog that bursts out of the stomach. Despite being wrapped from head to toe in trash bags Rob came out so covered in slime and goo he could've been the Thing!"The Creepy Creature Effects of The Thing By Erin McCarthy October 14, 2011 1:30 PM Popular Mechanics.com "GILLIS: The first thing we did was to pull up all of the Bottin stuff—all the pieces he made for the film. We looked at them to figure out, what is the aesthetic of The Thing? What is it that needs to be reinterpreted, if it even needs to be reinterpreted? There’s a tendency for people to fix what ain’t broke, and we didn’t want to do that."Rob Bottin on Norris spider-head from "The Thing" (1982) from YouTubeperception of motion picture special effects Google search resultsSpirit DataCine from WikipediaMovie theater etiquette and Calexico! from Frolic Through Life blog (photo source)ROB BOTTIN from Club des Monstres.com (photo source)Rob Bottin from WikipediaTom Woodruff, Jr. from alien anthology wikiAlec Gillis from alien anthology wikiA Tale of Two Blobs criterion.com (photo source)

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

A Comparison of The Thing from Another World (1951), The Thing (1982), and The Thing (2011)No Friendly Aliens

The Thing from Another World is clearly not friendly. Do any movie space men show up to do good for humanity? I'm going to have to do an internet search to find aliens that are friendly in films. Bet I don't find very many. There's E.T., of course. All the other ones I can think of are here to do damage, even if they appear to be friendly at first (think of the television series V). Perhaps the Native Americans who first greeted the Pilgrims, welcomed Columbus, and embraced the initial Conquistadores, were the last people to not immediately assume that alien invaders are unfriendly and harmful. The descendants of those invaders are naturally aware that new immigrants might outnumber them, and change the country again (like their ancestors did). This has led to some tales of paranoid interface with invading alien forces.

Perhaps film writers cannot imagine friendly aliens. Because...well, friendly aliens would be boring, right? No conflict, no movie, right? "To Serve Man" is a Twilight Zone episode, so you know the outer space visitors are not going to be here for human benefit. Even Klaatu is here to tell us to get in shape or else, in The Day the Earth Stood Still. The critter in Cloverfield ain't friendly at all. The Creeping Unknown is up to no good. And how 'bout them extraterrestrials in Independence Day?

Okay, I looked up some things, and I forgot Superman, and I haven't seen some of the films with supposedly non-belligerent aliens. Of course there's Enemy Mine (1985) where the alien is actually quite helpful and compatible, although technically speaking, even the earth character is an alien on the planet where they crash.

Okay, so we can't say that there are no friendly aliens in films, but friendly astral immigrants in both print and film are rare.

By the time John W. Campbell, Jr. wrote "Who Goes There?" the trope of unfriendly invading aliens had already been set, at least as early as 1897, when H. G. Wells published his serialized novel, The War of the Worlds. His Martian characters were invading forces, wanting the water-rich earth to replace their dry, dying Mars. Humans were in the way. The subtextual commentary is about English Imperialism, of course, but his invaders are evil because he saw the British way of dealing with indigenous peoples as evil.

If all space aliens before 1938 had been benign, would Campbell's creature have been benign as well, or would he have invented the vicious, invading monster? Who can know? In the story the idea that the creature is not friendly is one of the points argued by the members of the expeditionary force. A character named Connant speaks first, answered by Blair:

John W. Campbell, Jr. wrote:"I know it's your pet--but be sane about it. That thing grew up on evil, adolesced slowly roasting alive the local equivalent of kittens, and amused itself through maturity on new and ingenious torture."

"You haven't the slightest right to say that," snapped Blair. "How do you know the first thing about the meaning of a facial expression inherently inhuman? It may well have no human equivalent whatever. That is just a different development of Nature, another example of Nature's wonderful adaptability. Growing on another, perhaps harsher world, if has different form and features. But it is just as much a legitimate child of Nature as you are. You are displaying the childish human weakness of hating the different. On its own world it would probably class you as a fish-belly, white monstrosity with an insufficient number of eyes and a fungoid body pale and bloated with gas."

Is it inevitable that a race advanced enough to cross between stars would come to conquer? Perhaps we are only viewing star travelers with a self-reflecting lens. Or, maybe there is something about life everywhere that is the same, just as the chemical elements are the same throughout the Universe that we can see. Or at least they appear to our scientific instruments to be the same.

Connant turns out to be right about the Thing in the ice block. That notion is preserved in The Thing from Another World as the thing from the spaceship turns out to have it in for humans. The entire story becomes about stopping the invader in Alaska. Carpenter's ice station inhabitants form an Antarctic defensive line against a 100,000-year old invading organism (as do the Norwegians in the 2011 film, although their story is supposed to happen first).

But in all but the 1951 version of the story, the alien has come to earth long before human civilization; 20 million years in the case of the short story. Why, that was even before humans evolved. As nearly as Blair and the others can deduce in Campbell's seminal yarn, the aliens might well have found themselves on earth by complete accident due to mechanical malfunction.

Anyway, three of the stories are set up so that the malevolence on the part of the invader can easily be questioned. Is the Thing simply trying to survive, in the way that all living creatures attempt to do? Does the story postulate that by interbreeding with the invaders, the indigenous tribes (or subspecies in the case of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) actually become the invader? If that is so, perhaps the story is less about invasion than it is about assimilation--or being assimilated. If so, Campbell presents a dismal view of "survival of the fittest" since his fictional organism has the ability to simply be the fittest wherever it goes. That is a goose-bump-inducing thought: That we might someday accidentally meet a creature that we have no evolutionary traction against, whatsoever! Even more chilling to some would be the idea that we humans might be that creature.

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

A Comparison of The Thing from Another World (1951), The Thing (1982), and The Thing (2011)

Retention

Title Burns On
Sometimes a filmmaker creates a visual that has such impact that whoever tries remaking the movie cannot do any better. For example, the title presentation of the words "The Thing" in the 1951 film influenced the production designers for the 1982 and 2011 films to -- well, to keep it the same. The visual of the words seeming to melt onto the screen, while a harsh backlight shines forward through the missing space is too cool to not re-use.

Isolated Location
How many horror films are set in a remote area? Maybe this is to explain why the audience has never heard of the incident depicted. It serves to set up isolation from help, isolation from knowledge, and creates that abandoned feeling that we all try to avoid. Even though many people are present at all the ice stations (37 in the crew in the 1938 short story), the mere fact that they are the only ones standing between the Thing and certain annihilation of humanity as we know it, makes each individual feel the imperative to stop the Thing. Kill it, stop it's progress away from this remote location. Save the world!

In all the versions of the story, print and film, the remote location is necessary to the possibility of stopping the alien from spreading. If the Thing had landed in a small town it would have been unstoppable -- without question. So a person who is not normally in charge of the station recognizes the danger and takes command of the situation, if not of the installation itself.

All three films feature this isolation aspect of the story. It appears in Campbell's print original, as well. It only makes sense to retain the idea. Why relocate the story to a desert, or to a city or small town? If you want to see the small-town version of the same theme, watch 1957's Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

A Leader Arises
One way in which the 1951 film differs from the latter pair, and not in a flattering way, is that the person who takes charge in the situation is a military man. Capt. Hendry is in charge because of his rank, not because he's the smartest guy in the room. The 1982 and 2011 films have one of the personalities among the entire crew of each camp, rise to the occasion and somehow see the way to stop the Thing from spreading. Whereas the military officer's attempt to stop the mobile-vegetable Thing is successful, we are not sure about the effectiveness of 1982 ad-hoc leader, MacReady's plan. We are certain that Kate Lloyd's efforts in the 2011 movie do not work out as intended. (For the record, in "Who Goes There?" MacReady's plan, executed with the remaining humans in the camp, successfully, but barely thwarts the spread of the Thing.)Don't Make Me Jump
A stylistic aspect of each film is that the number of scenes that create a startle response based on smash cuts, or sudden on-screen action are kept minimal. It's as if the directors and production designers just know that this is a cheap way to get a reaction from the audience, and it really works only once or twice in a movie. After that it becomes tiresome. So that economy of jump scenes is retained from film to film. No reason that it had to be, but it is.

Full-on Burn
History tells it that the first film in which a stunt man did a full-body burn effect was The Thing from Another World. The subsequent films also have at least one scene with such a stunt. The 2011 film supposedly features one of the few stunt women (if not the first) to do a full body burn. There is also a stunt man who has a partially bare chest and arm during his full body burn, thanks to a gel that can be used to protect skin from fire these days. Such a flame stunt is not only dangerous for the actor/actress who is aflame, but for others on the set at the time. No wonder this is a popular effect in action and horror films. There is a certain mesmerizing aspect to watching someone move within the fire, taking the flames along.

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

A Comparison of The Thing from Another World (1951), The Thing (1982), and The Thing (2011)

Constricting Sets

Being closed in is reassuring to some people. It is anxiety-inducing to others. But if you were closed in with an assailant, it would probably be terrifying to anyone. The three Thing movies, and the short story as a matter of fact, take place in a research camp set in the frozen expanses of the Arctic or Antarctic. The cold is well-represented by the snowy locations. The necessity of keeping doors and windows closed in order to preserve needed heat leads to a closed-in feeling. Manipulation by the set-designers, of the sizes of corridors and rooms enhances the feeling of being restrained and trapped.

The first of these films is set in Alaska. The other two in Antarctica. The construction of the sets is similar: wood, linoleum, glass windows. The 1951 film has more claustrophobic lighting than the 1982 and 2011 outings. The grayscale also emphasizes the contrast and areas of darkness in a way that is slightly softened by the use of color in the later movies. (For a check on my idea here, you can follow the links to a colorized version of the 1951 film on YouTube, posted below.)

The advantage for the 1951 set designers was that millions of men had served in the military and they had a mental image of what military buildings looked like. All D'Agostino and Hughes had to do was mimic that, and the audience would buy the design. Whether the construction techniques would have yielded a structure impervious to deep cold or not was immaterial. The set served the scenes.

The 1982 camp design is no doubt more accurate to what was actually being constructed in Antarctica around the 70s and 80s. I've actually never seen photos of real Antarctic station interiors, so I Googled to get some photos. Nothing I find resembles the sets for the Carpenter film. Everything that shows interior photos is much newer. There is an exterior in the Goggle results of an Arctic station, and it resembles that in the 1951 film. Which gives me the idea that the 1982 station design might have been based on the 1951 film, as well. But adding the word "history" to my Google image search yielded some shots of British Antarctic stations that vaguely resemble those built for Carpenter's film. The set was built in British Columbia, by the way, in the summer before the exterior shoots.

A big challenge for the 2011 re-creators was that no blueprints of the 1982 Norwegian camp sets existed when production was undertaken. So, I have read, they used Kurt Russell as a yardstick, and calculated the sizes of the rooms seen in the 1982 film based on knowing his height. Then they added whatever else they needed to create the rest of the camp. If you watch the '82 film and then immediately watch the 2011 version, you can't easily discern any errors in set layout. They did their jobs pretty well, these designers.

When we go outside with the cast in the films we are often in the darkness of night. But even daytime scenes are constricting because of the palpably frigid snowy surroundings. Claustrophobia when outside is difficult to achieve, but Campbell's Antarctic setting of the story can manage that even when it is whiteness surrounding us rather than darkness or constricting walls. An expanse of hostile frozen wasteland is as close-feeling as narrow hallways at times. Fortunately, the set and production designers understand that, and manage to make every moment of the films feel closed in.
Last, the stunt burns in all three films are carried out in tight surroundings. In part this is so that the flames can more easily be controlled for the sake of the non-actors on the set. But there is another purpose. Everything in these sets is flammable! When you're closed in, should the building catch on fire, it has to ratchet up the sense of constriction. There are always secondary players in these films who immediately run for the extinguisher canisters. The 1951 film has the additional effect of having the walls, furniture and fabrics catch fire during the single burn scene. That brings home the claustrophobia quite well.

Clearly, this alien creature can build and pilot a starcraft from another star system, but it has never heard of Stop, Drop & Roll! It prefers the much more camera-friendly Run and Flail.

Additional shooting was done on a North Dakota set using stand-ins for the actors. The flying saucer sequence ended up being filmed at the RKO Ranch in Encino, California, using fake snow in front of an extensive curved backdrop."

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Okay! The content part of this thread (at least for the time being) is complete.

For the first time since 5 Feb 2011 I don't have any bbcode staring me in the face demanding that I watch films and analyze them.

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

The total elapsed time working on this thread is 1200 days (if my counting and 'rithmetic is correct).

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

It would be nice if I knew how to foment some discussion in here about the finished threads and the films they encompass. But, if I were a betting man, I'd bet against being able to do that.

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

You can reach any Round of Rematches, or any individual Rematch
from this comprehensive catalog post.

Spoilers are not always marked in reviews or essays!

Access Rematches by Round, using the Round One, Two, or Three logos below.
The Round One Rematches have the essay thumbnails in a separate post.
The Round Two and Round Three Initial Posts include the essay thumbnails.

Access individual Initial Posts for Rematches using the buttons below. They are arranged alphabetically.
The Round One Rematches (yellow background) have the essay thumbnails in a separate post.
The Round Two (blue background) and Round Three (coral background) Initial Posts include the essay thumbnails.

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

The thread has 1913 replies, plus the initial post. Of the 1914 posts so far, there are 560 that have core information (Top Banners, Initial Posts, Essay Brokers, Tech Posts, Essays, etc.). As of 25 May when the Thing Rematch's last essay went up on the board, there had been 347632 page views in the thread over the past 3 years 104 days.

On average I would generate 4-6 page views while setting up a new information post in the thread. That means about 2800 of those page views are from my postings. There are other page views for my single, goofball posts, and the occasional reply to a reply post that I did. I've marveled at the number of page views. Naturally, the number of views is increased because people link from one page to another in order to read the thread. I've never completely understood where the views are coming from.

Genie says most of the readers are lurkers. I guess that means a lot of people who read cannot post replies because they have no Corrie account. Some have posted that they aren't reading because they are afraid of spoilers. Anyhow, it's been weird for me to post so many items and have a very low number of replies, but I wrote early on that I was doing this for myself. I guess that was a good thing!

I will continue to bump the thread whenever I think of it, in case anyone wants to read. And links will remain in my signature.

Last night I composed and posted the Comprehensive Catalog Post (no spiffy designation is required, I guess), right above this post. From there you can access any Rematch pretty much directly, or you can get to the banner farms of top posts for the three rounds.

It's been fun. Glad it's done!

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

YouTookMyName wrote:Clearly, this alien creature can build and pilot a starcraft from another star system, but it has never heard of Stop, Drop & Roll! It prefers the much more camera-friendly Run and Flail.

Haha!

Congratulations on finishing the thread! That catalog post is a thing of beauty. I've spent some time thinking about page views myself (though my thread has less than half of yours). I crave lurker fans, but I fear they're only spiderbots.

Yeah, that was the first thing I thought of was bots. And despite Genie's conviction that the views are from lurkers, it seems that bots tracing all those links would generate a large number of page views.

Thank you for the compliment. And for suggesting World on a Wire. That was fun to work on.

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Das, if you finally have time and think of a match you'd like to explore, don't hesitate to post in this thread. Or to start your own Rematch thread.

I'll be out of the loop for a few months (likely) chasing down things that I neglected while attempting to finish this a few months early.

The offers I made to you in December still hold, though.

And anyone else who'd like to create a comparison, have at the thread. It ain't locked!

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

YouTookMyName wrote:
Yeah, that was the first thing I thought of was bots. And despite Genie's conviction that the views are from lurkers, it seems that bots tracing all those links would generate a large number of page views.

Thank you for the compliment. And for suggesting World on a Wire. That was fun to work on.

I think I check this thread about 5 times a day, so 6000 of the views are probably mine.

"So, you see, he was condemned to walk in darkness a quadrillion kilometres (we've adopted the metric system, you know)..."██████████████████████████████████████████The Devil, The Brothers Karamazov

Maybe that was it. A small number of people obsessively checking to see if I had posted anything new. Mostly they would have been disappointed. Most days, nothing new.

I just checked Macrology's thread to see if there was anything new in it, and decided that replies to these Rematches must have fallen off because after a certain point, all the rest was undesired lagniappe.

At RT I knew how to check to see who had posted how many times in a thread. I've never sought to learn how to do that at the Corrie.

I've been reading the webarchives of the pages (can be opened only with Safari, which is no longer supported for Windows), and it is astounding how many typos slipped past me eyes when I was editing the posts! Also, once in a while there is an edit, and I obviously didn't go back to see if my change had rendered the sentence nonsensical. It had. Also, tense mismatches crop up every so often, and sometimes I would leave the wrong grammar after making a last-minute edit.

Anyway, there was a bit of conversation going on in the thread for the first two years. At some time it must have gotten much less interesting. Das admitted that he would read regularly but felt as if he had nothing to add. Fewer and fewer other voices posted as time went by.

It was defs time to quit in May 2014!

Of course, I still get comparison ideas all the time. But I have no plans to start another Rematch or Not-Quite Remake Rematch thread until after Christmas. Maybe the idea will get replaced by something that makes more sense by that time! Perhaps I'll go back to simply reading the other fine posters who haunt this forum.

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

This thread was completed on May 25, 2014. I posted the comprehensive catalog on the next day, and Hank posted his complimentary message about three weeks later on June 19 (thanks for the support, Hank!).

Genie always insisted that lurkers were doing the reading. Since my last post there have been another 52,721 page views. That's over 64 days. That's a daily average of 823 page views. The average per day for the entire 1264 days since I started the thread is 317 page views.

Bots or lurkers? I still don't know. And I don't know how to find out.

If you Google anything other than "Remake Rematch" the thread doesn't show up, at least not on Google page 1, for any of the films reviewed.

......................................................

I miss doing the rematches, and then, again, I don't. I was feeling truly ambivalent about this thread for about the last 9-10 months. Simply was determined to finish. Of course, since I completed the thread I've been working very long hours for 6 part time jobs. That will ease soon.

But I will probably start a new thread within the next year to compare some of the other films that I'd like to do...not on a pre-announced schedule, though. I haven't stopped making either mental or physical lists of originals and remakes that I'd like to compare.

Thanks to those who are still reading. Even if you're only robot software!

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

YouTookMyName wrote:Genie always insisted that lurkers were doing the reading. Since my last post there have been another 52,721 page views. That's over 64 days. That's a daily average of 823 page views. The average per day for the entire 1264 days since I started the thread is 317 page views.

Bots or lurkers? I still don't know. And I don't know how to find out.

It looks like my thread has averaged about 350 views per day since April 15. If our threads (with approximately the same number of pages) are that different, a significant proportion must be lurkers, right? I'm assuming bots would be more evenly distributed. Honestly, I'm just glad someone else pays attention to page views. I'm such a geek.

Shieldmaiden wrote:It looks like my thread has averaged about 350 views per day since April 15. If our threads (with approximately the same number of pages) are that different, a significant proportion must be lurkers, right? I'm assuming bots would be more evenly distributed. Honestly, I'm just glad someone else pays attention to page views. I'm such a geek.

I payed attention to page views too... back when I had a thread to pay attention to Especially later in the process of Inspired By... : I had hoped that my images would spark more conversation about the films. There ended up being very few comments at all... but a lot of page views. That kept me going because it all started to feel a little pointless at the time. But I have continued to create them and my interactions with people at my shows has been pretty positive. I was just recently commissioned to create The Royal Tenenbaums and To Catch a Thief.

On the subject of Bots vs. Lurks... I still find myself looking in this thread and browsing the features. Especially after watching a film that was featured in here. For instance: Peter Pan(the kids and I just watched the Disney version last week) It was nice to read YTMN's thoughts with the film so fresh in my mind. This is truly one of the most comprehensive threads I've read.

Hank wrote:
On the subject of Bots vs. Lurks... I still find myself looking in this thread and browsing the features. Especially after watching a film that was featured in here. For instance: Peter Pan(the kids and I just watched the Disney version last week) It was nice to read YTMN's thoughts with the film so fresh in my mind. This is truly one of the most comprehensive threads I've read.

Comprehensive=wordy.

Well, thanks for continuing to read. I'm sort of stunned that the thread had some "actual" utility for you. I'm really glad you're enjoying it.

Look below for something I've been stealing a few minutes here and there to work on for the past 60 days. Just the graphics, not really the content. Merely at how it might look stages right now.

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Test graphics for the potential extension of this idea (but possibly also in another thread). Nothing planned or scheduled yet. Above is the Top Banner for an NQ Rematch I'd like to do someday...

Below is the NQRR Initial Post without any essay or tech posts having been made.

This is the initial post for The Not Quite a Remake Rematch between Ladri di biciclette (1948) and Beijing Bicycle (2001)

This NQ Rematch is not scheduled to begin at all.

Suggested by Gort

By the time all the tech posts are in place, their buttons will change, and look like this.

This is the initial post for The Not Quite a Remake Rematch between Ladri di biciclette (1948) and Beijing Bicycle (2001)

This NQ Rematch is not scheduled to begin at all.

Suggested by Gort

And another idea for an NQ Rematch:

Some other ideas exist. Das gave me one last Winter. I think it was that long ago. When he was out of class in December.

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

This is the initial post for The Not Quite a Remake Rematch between The Adventures of Pinocchio (1996) and A.I.: Artificial Intelligence (2001)

This NQ Rematch is not scheduled to begin at any time.

Suggested by YouTookMyName

..........................................................................................................................
(Sigh) It's so difficult to not throw the Disney Pinocchio into the mix.

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

This is a very interesting idea methinks. My brain is now running through any possibilities I would have buried deep down in there... It seems to me that there has to me some sort of NQaRR out there for The Matrix. There are lots of movies with 'the one' or with projections of oneself in a distorted reality. I thought Avatar was a lot like FernGully when I saw it, although I haven't seen either for years (FernGullywas most recently watched ohhh... 20 years ago).

I have not seen The Adventures of Pinocchio. This seems to be the case for virtually all of your rematches initially. I've seen one but not the other. It's made for a good source to add to my 'to watch' list.

YTMN would wind up in trouble if he compared Fern Gully to Avatar. Probably from people who both liked and hated Avatar.

I have never seen Fern Gully.

There's an idea...I could do a Rematch where even I have not seen both the movies! Wouldn't that be cool? This is America, so I can have strict opinions about works of art I've never seen, right? The rest of the world likes to be somewhat conversant with the things they have opinions about, though. Or am I merely idealizing non-Americans and their attitudes?

Das suggested one NQRR, and I built the TB for kicks:

Das wrote:IE: this, while not direct, Night of the Creeps, Slither and The Tingler represent three creature features with very similar 'horrors' (invasive, alien body parasites in each) could be a good one.

And then another one suggested itself quite readily as I read the books that you'll recognize as you stare at this:

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Sort of in the works, in that I'm reading background material. Still with no projected dates. I think I might have posted the images in the Crew thread, but maybe I only mentioned that I was thinking of these:

and...

I've been acquiring links and also DVDs for the Tarzan RMM, but I already own all the Batman materials. And the ridiculously expensive Blu-ray of the 1966 TV show is on its way to me.

As for getting the Kindle edition of my books done. Ha! I got busy for hire in June and it hasn't let up much. Thus, no further Rematchings and no book transforming. Old. Tired at the end of teh day. Can spend energy doing nothing, but have none left for something.

If that makes any sense to anyone.

Also, people in the house go by my open door thinking they see me watching something on TV. In reality they see me sleeping in front of the TV set.

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

The one where you claim that *uses whiny voice* if you start this back you will only post the next item after at least two people have posted.*ends whiny voice*

That "rule".

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Once all the frame-grabbing is done I can write essays and do graphics as the ideas come to me. Although some essays are already underway, and have been for months.

I have no idea if anyone is interested, but these ideas keep filling up my brain, so I have to do something with them.

For my individual fan out there, I must report that there is still no timeline, and there won't be. This round will feature NQRRs and various Rematches, but it will be done like Round One, with no set schedule.

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

The next Rematch has been "officially" chosen. Been watching and writing and otherwise working on this one

which will be up next in this thread. With Reel Future and real work it's been a slow process. Also, I'm not talking about starting next week or anything, but I have been working on working through all the viewing that must be done. Pulling still frames, and the like.

The thing on the left there has 15 episodes to watch. The Batman TV series by Wm. Dozier, which accompanies the Martinson film from the Rematch, has 120 episodes (I'm about halfway through season 3, so that's coming along), and I've ordered DVDs of the 1949 15-part serial Batman and Robin. Seems like anything so far with that title has been pretty iffy. Then, of course, I dislike Batman Begins so much that I haven't been able to watch it all the way through. I get bored, then pissed that not everything Chris Nolan has done is good (he's a fave director of YTMN), or in this case even any good at all; then pop out the disk and decide to try again later. Five attempts so far! Not even halfway through it. Would watch from where I left off last time, but I can never remember where it is, and I start from the top. Must...master...self.

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Wow. I had no idea that you hated Begins that much! I'm interested to see how you feel after finally finishing the whole thing... because most people I know dislike the last act, and you can't even seem to get there! This is going to be an interesting Multimatch methinks.

Hank wrote:Wow. I had no idea that you hated Begins that much! I'm interested to see how you feel after finally finishing the whole thing... because most people I know dislike the last act, and you can't even seem to get there! This is going to be an interesting Multimatch methinks.

Even your favorite directors can disappoint you once in a while, you know. There are Kubrick movies I don't care for. I saw a Danny Boyle film that I couldn't seem to like. There is even a Tarkovsky that kind of leaves me cold.

But most of the films by those guys tickle my fancy.

And I've already see all of Batman Begins. Wrote about it at Rotten Tomatoes Forums back in the day. Aaaaand, my saved links to my threads at RT don't work anymore.

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Have you seen Nolan's Interstellar? It being Nolan and science fiction; maybe it's right up your alley. I haven't yet... I just don't get out to theaters anymore. I will see it soon since it comes out at the end of March. I haven't seen any Kubricks that I dislike, but I have 3 on my not seen list... perhaps those are the films you don't care for!

Hank wrote:Have you seen Nolan's Interstellar? It being Nolan and science fiction; maybe it's right up your alley. I haven't yet... I just don't get out to theaters anymore. I will see it soon since it comes out at the end of March. I haven't seen any Kubricks that I dislike, but I have 3 on my not seen list... perhaps those are the films you don't care for!

I haven't seen Interstellar. I suppose I will like it. Of course every sci-fi film has to try to measure up to the way 2001 made me feel. Which isn't fair to them, because the 16-year old kid who absolutely without reservation loved that film, is covered up by 47 layers of ages he's been since then. The older YTMN even demoted 2001 to second most fave film evaarr. It was the 16-yr old who would spend money to see the movie at theaters 6 times. I think it was 6. Four times in the first two weeks, at the Parmount Theater in Memphis. Huuuuge screen. Six-channel stereo. (Dad's money.) And then once at a second-run theater, and once at a drive-in. (Still Dad's money) Yeah, even on the drive-in screen it was awesome, with mono sound. Yeah. The first time I sneered at it was on television. Letterboxed, and diminutive. It just wasn't the same. But it's good on DVD and best on Blu.

My friends went to Interstellar, and they said they thought I would like it. I asked why they didn't ask me to go, and they said they thought I was busy, which I was. But I'd've blown off working at home that night to take a look at it. The trailer failed to spoil the one thing I found out later that would have gotten me to the theater for sure. Ridiculous coy trailers.

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Kind of ridiculous, eh? But I finished the big one, the 120 episodes of the 1966 TV show. It's been a long time since I watched most of the others. Have to brush up on them.

And, as it turns out, the Batman comics amalgamations (Chronicles was cheapest) are now mostly quite costly as used books, so I'm not sure how I'll rescan the early comic strips to get a sense of the paper origins of the character. Maybe I'll find a way. Maybe I'll just convince my self that it isn't important! Batman Chronicles Volume 1 is available as a Kindle book, but not volume two, which has the origin of Robin in its first included issue, and costs about $100.00 used.

The idea of doing a Rematch is always exciting to me, but the actuality of getting one written, all graphicked up and posted is not so glamourous. And, of course, no one is making me do this.

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

I guess I can stop my sissy whining about not being able to get the issue of Detective Comics where Robin the Boy Wonder first appears. It's in Batman Chronicles Vol. 1 which arrived today. Det. Comics #38, April 1940 features that story, and it's right in here in full 4-color printing. So, I've got all I need to proceed with the comics side of the Remake Multimatch.

I'm sure that makes all of you happier.

And I won't have to talk myself into spending $100 to get some comic books I'd likely never read again, or go without reviewing the printed origin of the first teen sidekick in the comics. And that makes all of me happier.

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Ace wrote:Next Gort is going to review the Animated Batman Series and the animated Batman movies. :p

This is unlikely!

Ace wrote:You should have gotten the 75 years of Batman Hardcover book. It has all the essential Batman stories.

Good idea! This I did. It will be to me on Saturday.

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Ace wrote:Next Gort is going to review the Animated Batman Series and the animated Batman movies. :p

Nah. But I am working slowly through Batman Beyond on Flix streaming. Haven't seen any of the other Batman animated series. My sons used to watch Batman: the Animated Series quite often, though.

I've seen a couple of the feature length DTV movies. Can't remember which ones. Have read lots of comics compilations, though. Certainly not all. And I used to have my nose in a Batman or Detective Comics comic book about 1/3 of the summertime back in the 1960s (well, 1961-1967, anyway). I think Batman had taken over Detective by that time. There might have been other detectives featured in that magazine then, but I didn't bother reading them.

Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Yeah I got my friend that Batman: A celebration of 75 years book he still has yet to go through all of it but it has pretty much all the important stories throughout his life.
I kinda want to borrow it though to give it a read myself.

Co host of the Film Raiders Podcast.
Were on Spotify, Itunes, SoundCloud, Stitcher, TuneIn, Blubrr,Iheartradio and many more.